Note: see video intro above for more, and contact me if you wish at jenifer[at]anconastrategy[dot]com. This is my first post on Open Left. Thanks so much to Chris, Matt and Mike for the opportunity! I am a San Francisco-based writer, activist and strategist working in the progressive movement. In these Monday columns I will be sharing with you insights and commentary on movement politics from my perspective, which is very much rooted in the traditions and politics of historical movements for progressive social change. I look forward to the conversation.
There has been some great discussion on Open Left over the last few days analyzing movement-building in historical context, initiated by Mike Lux, and continued by Paul Rosenberg and others throughout the weekend. These writers have asked important questions, like "Where did we go wrong?", "How did we lose," or more specifically, "What was the larger social context that caused the conservative movement to succeed and ours to fail?" The part I want to add to this discussion is around defining the kind of movement we want and need to build, because having a good understanding of what a successful movement looks like is part of the work we need to do to build it. Much of the discussion thus far has been on the relationship between insiders and outsiders. As Mike said:
I believe instead that we need to build our own kind of movement, one that is fueled by a more egalitarian and communal culture. Sort of, well, an Open Left…
I agree that this is a relevant and important component for us to understand. But it is just that -- a component. There is another piece that isn't talked about enough, and that I think is equally if not more important: the disconnect between the largely white progressive world and the people-of-color-led groups and social justice-focused movements that are necessary to building our long-term winning coalition. We could have an "Open Left," as Mike suggests. But if the leadership of that movement reflected that of the organizations listed under that heading on the right column of this website right now, it's important to point out that it would be largely white and male. And I think we all agree that is not what our movement looks like.
What is a Movement?
The word "movement" is thrown around a lot these days, in the blogosphere and in progressive politics (as anyone who is on any Democratic candidate's email list knows). In this context, I think we would all do better to more fully understand what a movement really is. Northwestern University Professor Aldon Morris writes of the four essential components of movement-building in his book, The History of the Civil Rights Movement. I often come back to this, because I find it incredibly useful in thinking about movement-building today. Morris, who devoted 30 years of scholarship to studying movements and what works, says successful movements need:
- A compelling narrative with symbols
- Mass membership organizations
- Indigenous local leadership
- Communication channels
It's encouraging that groups like the Democracy Alliance and the New Progressive Coalition, who are trying to figure out how to fund the emerging multi-issue progressive movement, have a similar framework to Morris'. They are working to invest in organizations in four broad categories: ideas, civic engagement, leadership and media. These are also the areas, of course, that conservatives like John Olin and Richard Scaife focused on when they set out to invest in a conservative movement.
If we think of the movement in this way -- and if we insist that each of these areas must be multi-issue and have multi-racial leadership -- it is easier to see where the gaps are, and what the opportunities are for improvement. My own analysis is that in the progressive movement we are most sorely lacking on the narrative and the communication channels. There has been much work just in the last year or so to improve on narrative and ideas, as many thinkers and authors and bloggers have explored what it means to be a progressive. But we don't yet have a narrative that fully addresses our vision, particularly when it comes to economics and race. And we still have more to do in finding good symbols. In terms of media, again, there are promising developments, but the reality is that the vast majority of Americans still get their information -- news, but also the values that are embedded into the entertainment culture -- from television and mainstream sources on the Internet, and it is not turning them into progressives, by and large. This is one area where I think the blogs have a lot of potential, but as of now, our reach is not nearly what it needs to be to truly have an impact (this would be an excellent session to explore at YearlyKos sometime).
In terms of the other two components, I think we have a lot more organizing to do to connect our mass membership organizations into a real force, and we probably need more resources devoted to developing our leadership training and pipelines, but the infrastructure is somewhat in place, and is largely multi-racial.
What defines us?
So, learning from the conservatives, and the failings of our own recent history of single-issue-driven politics, progressives are beginning to come together to build a multi-issue movement. Because it is multi-issue, I think it is more about underlying principles than it is about policy or issue-based platforms. One of the principles clearly is participation by a broad cross-section of people, and that includes the democratization of power and openness, which is so often discussed in the blogosphere.
But there has to be something else -- not ideology or issue based, but values-based -- that sets us apart as progressives, and unifies disparate parts of the movement. This is what civil rights veteran Harry Belafonte means, in talking about modern movement-building, when he challenges: Where is our moral center? If we believe, as Martin Luther King, Jr. did, that our destinies are tied up with those of all people in one "single garment of destiny," and "caught in an inescapable network of mutuality," then it should be the lives and experiences of the people who are most oppressed that guide the moral center of our movement. One of the keys to this is making sure that people who come out of these experiences are part of the leadership of the movement. As it stands now, that's not the case for our movement as a whole, in practice.
The immigration battle is just one good example of what happens as a result of the most active parts of the movement being disconnected, and proof that we are simply not applying these lessons from historical movement-building as well as we could. Millions of people marched in the streets last year, in a huge show of just how motivating this issue is for the fastest-growing demographic in the country. The strategic advantage of 12 million new citizens and potential voters is undeniable, and could have been the basis for solidifying a permanent progressive majority (realizing Bill O'Reilly's deepest fears).
And yet, what have we done to embrace and channel our collective energy and resources towards connecting to and building up this part of the movement? Have we put up ActBlue fundraising drives to support the immigrant community-based groups? Are we in regular contact with the multi-racial leaders of the immigrant rights fight so we can help promote their perspective, or do we even know who they are? MoveOn.org is by far the largest "Open Left" designated group with any kind of mass membership capacity that could have been put to work around the immigration issue. Yet a Google search of "MoveOn" and "immigration" turns up nothing. Why is that? I'm not trying to point fingers at them here, as I have had conversations that make me believe this was a movement-wide failure to come to any consensus around immigration. But I think it's a fact worth pointing out, because it helps explain why "open" has to be just one component of analyzing our progress in building a movement. We could have a list three times as long as the one on this site of organizations that embrace openness, but if those groups are not deeply connected to our moral center, what does it really mean?
Obviously, this progressive movement we are building is nascent. But I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't believe with every fiber of my being that its potential is incredibly strong. I don't think the blogosphere as a whole has quite figured out exactly where it fits in. But for now, it is playing a critical role in serving as a venue for hashing out these ideas, and I am very grateful to be taking part in it.
Design by Politics by Design, Powered by: SoapBlox